July 15, 2013

‘Legal’ Gun Owners are America’s New Privileged Class

The outcome of the Zimmerman case has shown, once again, that if you have a legal gun, you have more rights than someone without a gun.

Zimmerman had the right to stalk, harass, and kill – because his gun was legal. Had he been doing what he did without a legal gun, the police would have arrested him for the gun’s status alone. That much can be certain. And my guess is that things would have escalated and Zimmerman would have been charged for murder because he would have been considered a criminal every step of the way.

He would have been labeled a criminal for owning and leaving the house with an illegal gun. He would have been considered a criminal for stalking a child in the night. He would have been considered a criminal for fighting a child. And he would have been considered a murderer for killing that child.

But because his gun was legal, a good chunk of America believes in the story that was created by right wing talk radio and Zimmerman’s defense attorneys: he was a good man protecting his community while practicing his Second Amendment right who became the victim of a violent black man.

In the past few weeks, this same scenario – a legal gun changing the entire perspective ad outcome of a what should have been considered a crime – has happened at least two times.

Ezekial Gilbert via mysanantonio.com

In June, a man in Texas had the right to kill a prostitute who refused him sex because his gun was legal. The woman, Lenora Ivie Frago, had agreed to give Ezekial Gilbert 30 minutes “of her time” for $150, but said that didn’t include sex. After an argument ensued, she left. On her way to the pimp’s car. Gilbert shot her. She went into a coma and died months later.

Gilbert’s attorney argued that his client was only retrieving stolen property. The moronic Texas jury bought that, and let go a man who killed a woman because she refused to have sex with him.

I say he “had the right” to kill Frago because imagine that Gilbert’s gun was illegal. In the same event-changing manner as in my above example of how Zimmerman’s case would have turned out, Gilbert would have been labeled a criminal form the start, a murderer once the police arrived, and a jury would have put him away – likely to death row, considering that this was Texas and the woman who died not only suffered, but left behind a baby daughter.

Now, imagine again that when Frago tried to leave with Gilbert’s $150, that he grabbed her and beat her. Let’s imagine he punched her in the face a few times, knocked her out, and called the police to report a robbery. Would he have been patted on the back and told, “Good work, son. You did what you had to do to protect your property.”?

I seriously doubt that. But when it comes to a legally-owned gun, violence is not only acceptable – it’s seen as a right.

In May, there was a case in Alabama in which a woman shot her boyfriend’s stepson while he was in her driveway because she “feared for her life”…a quick Q&A investigation found she did nothing wrong – her gun was legal and she was scared.

Extremely little is known about this case because the police deemed it a justifiable homicide and didn’t release anything they found. According to the very weak media reports, the police bought the woman’s story that she didn’t know who the 19-year-old was her boyfriend’s stepson and she had every right to shoot a man who was at the edge of her driveway. (why this case did not create more media pressure is beyond me, considering the possibility for it to be a juicy story, especially amidst the Zimmerman controversy)

Again, to hammer home my point, imagine if her gun was illegal; there would be a different outcome. Imagine if she had thrown a knife at chest or a rock at his head or just beat him. There would be more questioning, more suspicion, more investigation.

But the gun was legal. What else is there to know? If you’re scared, you can kill – as long as it’s with a legal gun.

My legal gun = more rights theory is not just a theory. It’s happened, like in the case of the black man who killed the white teen who came to his house with a posse and threatened his son. He had an illegal gun, and not only did he get imprisoned for manslaughter, but they threw an illegal firearm charge at him, too.

And a Miami police chief also agrees. In a 2010 Tampa Bay Times article examining the repercussions of Stand Your Ground laws, which found that “justifiable homicides” have tripled since the laws were enacted in 2005, Chief John Timoney said:

“Whether it’s trick-or-treaters or kids playing in the yard of someone who doesn’t want them there or some drunk guy stumbling into the wrong house, you’re encouraging people to possibly use deadly physical force where it shouldn’t be used.”

I don’t know why this is the case. I suspect it has to do with the gun lobby creating an obsession over the Second Amendment that has caused gullible Americans who have seen too many movies to push lawmakers to pass gun-worshipping laws…but I have no proof, only conjecture. But whatever the explanation is, this is certainly the outcome: a society that loves guns so much, killing with them is seen in a different context than killing by other means. It’s seen as protecting one’s self and practicing the right our Founding Fathers wanted us to – even if your idea of protection and practicing is aggressive to the point of murder.

And as long as your gun is legal, you have the right to kill people coming up your driveway, kill prostitutes who refuse to have sex with you, and kill unarmed black teens.

In America, you don’t need money to be part of the privileged class – you just need a gun permit. Oh, and of course, it helps a lot if you’re white, since they’re 354% more likely to be cleared of murder in states that give gun owners extra rights.

March 29, 2013

Excerpts from Interview with Dr. Maung Zarni On Anti-Muslim Violence in Burma

You can read my interview with Dr. Zarni on Vice.com, but here I’ll be posting some audio excerpts of the interview that couldn’t fit into that piece.

How the Burmese Government Might be Directing the Anti-Muslim Violence

The media has been criticized for portraying the violence in Burma as simply a clash between two religions who don’t really like each other. But there is a lot of speculation that the government of Burma is instigating the violence. Zarni is one of those people who believe the latter, and here he explains how they are doing it.

Why Nobel Peace Prize-Winner Aung San Suu Kyi Has Not Been More Outspoken

Aung San Suu Kyi sits among generals who have been criticized for the violence.

Observers have wondered why popular opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi has not been more vocal against the violence. And many were surprised that Suu Kyi attended Armed Forces Day events in Burma, sitting next to the very generals who kept her under house arrest for two decades.

Zarni explains why he believes she has not taken a stand, claiming that it is a complex mix of personal ties to the military and good ol’ fashion politics usual.

March 24, 2013

Military Worship and Learning Nothing from the Iraq War

Last week was the 10th anniversary of the Iraq War – a war only the deluded and ignorant will say was a war worth fighting.

When the war started, many people in this country were mean drunk on patriotism and the “Support Our Troops” mantra was hardwired into the brains of people who believed Saddam Hussein planned the 911 attacks and had nuclear weapons pointing at Indian and Israel.

But now, much of the misinformation about the Iraq War has been exposed. Saddam didn’t have any weapons. We were never under any threat. And politicians lie. Nonetheless, this knowledge has not transpired into increased skepticism about the U.S. military. And all who serve in the military are still treated with the utmost hero worship.

I don’t mean to bash any individual troops. But I do find it confusing and frustrating that over the past 10 years, the military has used up so much blood and money, yet it’s still considered noble to treat members of the military better than everybody else.

Take for example this little exchange between some commenters on the internet. Quick context: the article was about how schools in Syracuse, NY are considering using retired police officers to work as school resource officers, who will get paid the SRO wage on top of their retirement pension. The plan caused a lot of people to complain about public employees getting “paid too much.”

Anyways, here is the exchange:

At first, I thought Dave T was trolling because I didn’t think retiring at 43 making $50 k was real. But apparently, it is, according to MilitaryWallet.com, which says that a member of the military is eligible for retirement after 20 years and can make $46 k to start if they are a retired officer. So if Dave T went in at 18, he served 25 years by the time he hit 43, making him eligible for what he said. And according to Military Wallet, will end up collecting about $2 million in retirement pensions over the next 40 years, not including benefits.

Jealous? Yes, kind of. That’s a lot of dough to be retiring with at 43. And without knowing what he actually did in the military, I don’t know if it’s just for him to be making that much. If he just retired after having served 20-something years, he was already in the military for 10 years before the Iraq War started (8 for Afghanistan). That makes it unlikely (and I might be wrong about this, but it’s my assumption) that he did much if any infantry time.

Therefore, it is most plausible that Dave T had a rather cushy position, maybe even stateside, for which he gets the benefits, accolades, and virtual handjobs usually reserved for Audie Murphy-type “heroes” from the next two commenters because our society mistakenly believes that everybody who serves in the military is a GI Joe saving the country from arch-enemies.

“You deserve it” and “You deserve to be treated better than the average” and “Thank you for your service” is not just the keyboard vomit results of two random people – it’s a common way of thinking for many people. It’s military worship, and it’s a weird form of fetish that this country needs to ween itself off of because not only is it weird, but it’s too damn expensive.

But why are they doing it?

It’s also evidence of our inability to learn from history. The U.S. hasn’t fought in a war worth fighting since World War 2. Korea, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Vietnam, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iraq again – as well as CIA operations all over the world and military operations in Yemen, Pakistan, and Central African Republic – were not fought because Americans were in danger. They were fought to further the U.S.’s geo-political dominance. So the men (and later women) who fought these wars might be brave, but they are not necessarily heroes – they are, unfortunately, mercenaries paid by the U.S. government to increase U.S. government and business influence.

Again, this is not meant to bash individual troops. And the fact that I have to say that again reflects the sad state we are in when it comes to thinking critically about our military. But it is an obvious fact when one looks at how military operations have been conducted over the last 70 years.

Part of the reason for the military worship that goes on in this country is because most people don’t serve in the military, and there is a level of insecurity from people as a result. Because somebody does not know what it’s like to be in the military, they err on the side of caution and assume that it is the most glorious, brave-hearted action one can do.

Of course, TV and movies that glamorize the men and women in uniform, as well as politicians that constantly cram “Support Our Troops” mantra down people throats doesn’t help either. But I think it’s mainly people’s lack of familiarity with the military as well as the reluctance to look at history to see what military actions have actually accomplished.

A great perspective on Americans’ uncritical praise of the military can be read here, by Aaron B. O’Connell, an assistant professor at the United States Naval Academy. Here’s an excerpt:

Like all institutions, the military works to enhance its public image, but this is just one element of militarization. Most of the political discourse on military matters comes from civilians, who are more vocal about “supporting our troops” than the troops themselves. It doesn’t help that there are fewer veterans in Congress today than at any previous point since World War II. Those who have served are less likely to offer unvarnished praise for the military, for it, like all institutions, has its own frustrations and failings. But for non-veterans — including about four-fifths of all members of Congress — there is only unequivocal, unhesitating adulation. The political costs of anything else are just too high…

Uncritical support of all things martial is quickly becoming the new normal for our youth. Hardly any of my students at the Naval Academy remember a time when their nation wasn’t at war. Almost all think it ordinary to hear of drone strikes in Yemen or Taliban attacks in Afghanistan. The recent revelation of counterterrorism bases in Africa elicits no surprise in them, nor do the military ceremonies that are now regular features at sporting events. That which is left unexamined eventually becomes invisible, and as a result, few Americans today are giving sufficient consideration to the full range of violent activities the government undertakes in their names.

And let me say “Amen!” to the ridiculous amount of military ceremonies at sporting events. Why corporate-sponsored sporting events feel like they are the natural place to conduct military ceremonies and why people seem to like it is just beyond me. Or maybe it is the most natural place, considering the vast corporate interests in both the military and sporting events, but that’s for another blog.

Anyways, the point of this blog is: after 10 years of a pointless war that cost more than 100,000 lives and close to $1 trillion, people need to be more critical of the purpose of the military. And it would help if members of the military told people to chill out when it comes to their GI Joe fetishes.

March 14, 2013

As long as we’re talking about Pope Francis’ role in the Dirty War, what about the U.S.’s involvement?

pope

As expected, several media organizations are talking about the new pope’s complicity and alleged involvement with Argentina’s right-wing military dictatorship during its Dirty War, which saw approximately 30,000 people murdered, tortured, or disappeared.

But let’s not forget that the 1970’s and 80’s were the U.S. government’s heyday for getting involved in bloody Latin American conflicts, and Argentina’s Dirty War was, unfortunately, no exception.

Soon after the military took control of the Argentinian government after a bloody coup, the U.S. gave them a lot of money to get control of the country, knowing that there would be human rights violations. According to a report by the Woodrow Wilson Center:

In 1976, the Ford administration welcomed the military junta with a $50 million security assistance package, $16 million more than the previous year, and planned to increase aid to $63.5 million the following year. U.S. officials’ attitudes conveyed understanding of the Argentine need to carry out a strong counterinsurgency offensive. In the early months of the junta, the view held by the U.S. Embassy in Buenos Aires was that human rights violations were a few excesses of loose right wing elements in government units and the junta was not responsible.

Meanwhile, according to documents from that time that weren’t declassified until 2003, then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger privately gave his approval to the Argentinian government to carry-out human rights abuses, as long as they do it quickly.

“Look, our basic attitude is that we would like you to succeed. I have an old-fashioned view that friends ought to be supported. What is not understood in the United States is that you have a civil war. We read about human rights problems but not the context. The quicker you succeed the better… The human rights problem is a growing one. Your Ambassador can apprise you. We want a stable situation. We won’t cause you unnecessary difficulties. If you can finish before Congress gets back, the better. Whatever freedoms you could restore would help.“

That was from Oct. 7, 1976. At that time, it is estimated that around 1,000 people had already been killed, including six American citizens. A low estimate of 21,000 more people would be killed (as noted above, it could be more like 30,000).

And although Argentina was publicly condemned for the human rights abuses, the U.S. government continued to support them privately and financially; in late 1976, shortly before Carter took office, the Ford administration requested $30 million in “military assistance” to a military that was constantly killing, kidnapping, and disappearing its own people, according to the Wilson Center report.

When Carter took office, there was more pressure put on the Argentinian government to stop the human rights abuses, but it was mostly in the form of talk, despite the situation worsening. Sanctions and aid weren’t in danger of being cut-off until December, 1977, when military forces assassinated activists affiliated with Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo, a group of mothers of disappeared people.

But that danger was temporary, and the Carter-Mondale administration, held up today as a symbol of naive liberalism, ended up approving loans and cash for military training and equipment.

What I would like to know is why there was such a focus on military aid when it was a military dictatorship that was committing a wide range of human rights abuses. I understand that “stability” is an important concept in geopolitical conversations and I realize that there was a militant leftist element in Argentina (although far, far weaker than the right-wing junta), but why the urgency to train and equip a military you can’t trust to not engage in rampant human rights abuses?

Anyways, it’s good that people are talking about Bergoglio’s role in Argentina’s Dirty War. But it should also be a time to talk about the U.S.’s role, which was likely far more influential than that of a Catholic priest. After all, the Catholic Church might hide pedophiles, but they don’t train and equip militaries.

March 12, 2013

Worst Part of Pope Media Coverage is Catholic Church Gets to Pretend it’s Not a Criminal Organization

Seriously?

The over-coverage of the Pope-picking is the epitome of boring, pointless modern-day journalism and from what I’ve seen, CNN has been excelling at doing it. Ted Turner’s channel has to be the most confusing news network in the country. It’s as if it’s ran by a bunch of people who sit around and wonder: “What do people not care about and how can we over-saturate that to the point that people’s brains bleed and deflate?”

Example: America’s hardest-hitting journalist, Erin Burnett, talks pope shoes…

This has been going on for about a month. What’s sad about this, other than the fact that so much time, energy, and electricity has been wasted by CNN by pumping more pointless infotainment onto our already massive dung heap of data, is that the Catholic Church gets to pretend that it’s not a deranged institution that promotes celibacy at the same time it protects men who rape children.

That is the greatest injustice CNN is promoting right now. We are used to them inexhaustibly covering frivolous topics beyond the point of exhaustion, but to give weeks of nearly round-the-clock attention to an institution for reasons other than the fact it is the largest child-raping institution in the history of man, should be considered a criminal act.

I wouldn’t put it past the pedophilia mafia that is the Catholic Church to have concocted the whole Pope resignation as a way to quiet down rumblings of more child rape allegations. They knew that the media would be all over this non-story like a Justin Bieber fart in public. So Benedict stepped down and they inserted the possibility in the American media that (OMG!) an American might be Pope. Wow! Really!?

And the American media would be so enamored with the possibility that Timothy Dolan could be the next freak in an oversized hat who rides around in a bullet-proof car that they would totally forget the fact that this is the same guy who paid $20,000 to priests accused of child molestation to leave the priesthood.

Cardinal Timothy Dolan, writer of $20,000 checks.

That’s right – instead of trying to put accused rapists in prison, he PAID them. A lot of money. Money donated to them by people who thought they were giving to something holy.

And then Dolan lied about it…something he probably didn’t have to admit to in confession since all the other priests were complicit in the crime. I doubt he even had to say a single Hail Mary.

But the point here is not just Dolan. The point is a criminal organization is being fetted over simply because it is choosing a new leader when they should be under a massive investigation for fraud and abuse (and that’s just what they’ve done in modern times and not including their historical atrocities).

I realize there are real, non-religious reasons to care who is the next pope – mainly, he will be in charge of an institution that theoretically holds great influence over more than a billion worshippers. But this is a huge theoretical given that the average Catholic is most likely not going to change much of what he or she does simply because the pope said so. And let’s be honest, what the hell difference is a new pope going to do?

Unless he comes out and says all Catholics should wear condoms, get on birth control, and get an abortion if they want, I don’t see many social changes occurring as a result of who is the pope, no matter where he is from.

And if a real miracle were to happen and the new pope said these things, poverty would still be an issue in terms of family planning, thus having little impact on reducing the number of abortions.

In the U.S., where less than 20% of the population of the population is Catholic:

Researchers from the Guttmacher Institute found the unintended pregnancy rate among women with incomes below the federal poverty line jumped by 50 percent between 1994 and 2006, the latest date available, from 88 per 1,000 to 132.

The poorer you are, the less access to health care you have and, as a result, the more unplanned pregnancies poor people have. That rule would likely follow in a place like Brazil, where the majority of the population is Catholic on paper.

A pope who came out and said abortion was okay could have great implications in a place like Brazil, where it is illegal unless the life of the mother is in danger (but many do it illegally, anyways), but like I said, we’d be talking about a miracle that would indicate the church trying to undo its more than a thousand years of fuckery.

And that’s not gonna happen.

As for the argument that the Catholic Church does some good, well…the Catholic Church is also one of the wealthiest property owners in the world. So wealthy, nobody knows how much they have because they don’t want anybody to know. They also pay very few taxes and no property taxes in Europe and the U.S., despite running a billion-dollar enterprise. So they should be feeding somebody.

And I’d love to see the total cost value of the harm the Church causes and taxes they get away without paying versus the “good” they actually do.

I know this post might seem like some Catholic Church-bashing…and it is, but it’s not personal. The Church has done some good in its history, like helping European colonizers see that Native Americans are human-beings (though that didn’t stop Catholic priests from shoving their beliefs down the Indians’ throats by any means necessary, according to this book), but as a modern-day political institution, it’s downright wretched and criminal.

But just because the frocked mafia is picking a new Godfather, CNN is all over them like a priest on a choir boy…all in the name of infotainment.

*Note: for more on the Catholic Church’s finances, read The Economist report from 2012.

February 5, 2013

Ep. 1: The Second Amendment and the ‘Right’ to Overthrow the Government

When the government tries to usher you into concentration camps, this guy will be there to stop them.

(intro: 0 – 7 min. Gun rally interviews: 7 min. – 18:48. Powe: 20:42 min. – 30:31 min. Outro: 39:00)

Welcome to the first episode of Blood and Billions. This is going to be a podcast that looks at the different ways control and corruption affect politics, laws, and everyday life. In this episode, I take a look at one of the more interesting aspects of the current con control debate: the growing belief among some gun rights activists that proposed gun control policies are nothing but a way for the government to control and suppress the people – and that the people will soon have to rise up against the government with their assault rifles in hand.

I then talk to Lucas Powe, a Constitutional Law professor at UT Austin who explains his interpretation of the Second Amendment and whether or not it gives an individual the right to bear arms against the government with a weapon of their choice. There is a lot of debate these days about what the Second Amendment means and what its limitations are. And certainly, Powe’s interpretation is not the only one. But he explains what he thinks are the limitations of the Second Amendment when it comes to an individual buying a high-powered weapon and waiting for the government to “come and take it,” which has been a common phrase lately.

Powe also explains his theory as to why there is such a push among gun rights advocates to protect gun rights. Hint: gun manufacturers are funding the NRA to bully politicians so they can sell more guns.

Here are some links that accompany this episode:

Fighting ‘government tyranny’ a growing concern for gun rights advocates

Violence Policy Center: “How the Gun Industry Bankrolls the NRA”

OpenSecrets.org summary of NRA donations